Lave and Wenger developed the concept of legitimate peripheral participation to describe learning as it engages with social practice and relationships, or how learning occurs through active participation in a community of practice (Smith; Lave and Wenger). Specifically, legitimate peripheral participation accounts for the process by which newcomers join a community and learn through participation and action at the periphery. The community’s practices, knowledge, activities, dynamics, and relationships are learned by newcomers through their low-risk and simple, but still productive and necessary, participation and actions.
Over time, the newcomer’s relationship and integration within the community changes towards full participation. Increased competency, knowledge, and involvement in the main processes of the community shift the newcomer to the status of old-timer. Legitimate peripheral participation suggests that the newcomer’s learning of knowledge is due to a process of social participation, as opposed to linear individual acquisition. In addition, this learning process is dynamic and constantly evolving for every member of the community, due to the variability and development of social interaction over time.
Definition of Terms:
Lave and Wenger carefully defined the interrelating terms in the phrase, legitimate peripheral participation, in an effort to better convey the concept.
Illegitimate peripheral participation: Legitimacy of social participation is essential for belonging to the group and contributing in a productive way. The illegitimate experience negates the potential for productive participation and learning. Therefore, legitimacy is necessary for learning and is a root of this concept (Lave and Wenger 35).
Peripherality: According to Lave and Wenger, every participant in a community of practice is, in some way, on the periphery. The center in a community in relation to an individual’s place in it does not exist. This is due to non-linear knowledge acquisition and the constant flux in each member’s level of engagement, learning trajectory, and form of membership. However, the peripherality of an individual insinuates a lower level of essentiality and integration within the community (Lave and Wenger 36).
Full participation: Over time, peripherality evolves into full participation, or a level at which an individual has a more key, higher stakes, or impactful role in the community. He or she also has a command of the knowledge, practices, and resources within the community (Lave and Wenger 37).
Example of Concept in Use:
The concept of legitimate peripheral participation is applied to different contexts in an attempt to better understand the process of learning in a variety of communities. Hasrati uses grounded theory to examine Ph.D. student and supervisor interactions in relation to legitimate peripheral participation in three differing fields of study. Hasrati determines that learning in the community of practice is best realized when the student is given credibility and therefore legitimacy in the field while performing simple tasks. In addition, Hasrati concludes that learning through informal interaction is essential and comprises most of the knowledge acquisition. Therefore, legitimate peripheral participation acts as an effective framework for Hasrati, enhances the understanding of the learning process in these contexts, and allows the author to further develop the concept of informal learning.
Legitimate Peripheral Participation
General Definition:
Lave and Wenger developed the concept of legitimate peripheral participation to describe learning as it engages with social practice and relationships, or how learning occurs through active participation in a community of practice (Smith; Lave and Wenger). Specifically, legitimate peripheral participation accounts for the process by which newcomers join a community and learn through participation and action at the periphery. The community’s practices, knowledge, activities, dynamics, and relationships are learned by newcomers through their low-risk and simple, but still productive and necessary, participation and actions.
Over time, the newcomer’s relationship and integration within the community changes towards full participation. Increased competency, knowledge, and involvement in the main processes of the community shift the newcomer to the status of old-timer. Legitimate peripheral participation suggests that the newcomer’s learning of knowledge is due to a process of social participation, as opposed to linear individual acquisition. In addition, this learning process is dynamic and constantly evolving for every member of the community, due to the variability and development of social interaction over time.
Definition of Terms:
Lave and Wenger carefully defined the interrelating terms in the phrase, legitimate peripheral participation, in an effort to better convey the concept.
Illegitimate peripheral participation: Legitimacy of social participation is essential for belonging to the group and contributing in a productive way. The illegitimate experience negates the potential for productive participation and learning. Therefore, legitimacy is necessary for learning and is a root of this concept (Lave and Wenger 35).
Peripherality: According to Lave and Wenger, every participant in a community of practice is, in some way, on the periphery. The center in a community in relation to an individual’s place in it does not exist. This is due to non-linear knowledge acquisition and the constant flux in each member’s level of engagement, learning trajectory, and form of membership. However, the peripherality of an individual insinuates a lower level of essentiality and integration within the community (Lave and Wenger 36).
Full participation: Over time, peripherality evolves into full participation, or a level at which an individual has a more key, higher stakes, or impactful role in the community. He or she also has a command of the knowledge, practices, and resources within the community (Lave and Wenger 37).
Example of Concept in Use:
The concept of legitimate peripheral participation is applied to different contexts in an attempt to better understand the process of learning in a variety of communities. Hasrati uses grounded theory to examine Ph.D. student and supervisor interactions in relation to legitimate peripheral participation in three differing fields of study. Hasrati determines that learning in the community of practice is best realized when the student is given credibility and therefore legitimacy in the field while performing simple tasks. In addition, Hasrati concludes that learning through informal interaction is essential and comprises most of the knowledge acquisition. Therefore, legitimate peripheral participation acts as an effective framework for Hasrati, enhances the understanding of the learning process in these contexts, and allows the author to further develop the concept of informal learning.
Related Concepts and Theories:
DualityCommunity of Practice
Situated Learning
Sources:
Hasrati, Mustafa. “Legitimate Peripheral Participation and Supervising Ph.D. Students.” Studies in Higher Education 30.5 (2005): 557-570. Print.Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print.
Smith, M.K. “Communities of Practice.” The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, 2009. Web. 19 July 2011.